The New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh that has spawned headlines everywhere about how Rumsfeld ordered the abuses at Abu Ghraib does seem to have a ring of truth to it. Yet,as I read it I couldn't get past the fact that Hersh's two primary sources are "a former high-level intelligence official" and a "senior C.I.A. official". There's no indication as to who the "former high-level intelligence official" worked for or why he's "former" rather than "current".
So we have one source who is no longer working in intelligence and another from the CIA, an organization that is engaged in its own bitter turf wars with the Pentagon. I can't dismiss Hersh's thesis as the NY Post does today, but I do think I'll withhold judgment until I know more.
Again, however, I think this article highlights the difficulties we face fighting an enemy that can hide so easily. One thing is certain, however. If the photographs from Abu Ghraib were part of an operation ordered from on high, it was obviously handled very incompetently.
